What is relabeling? It means to change your outward appearance to more accurately reflect your organizations goals and purpose. That has lead to today’s leading story. The question you must ask yourselves, “Is this true? Or, is it about to be true?”

Headline from somewhere on the Internet…

Democrat Party to Relabel Itself

June 31st, 2015

Old DNC Symbol

The DNC announced today that is was discontinuing the use of its century old icon, the Donkey, as its political symbol. After a complaint from PETA claiming the symbol was unfair to depict the party as a “beast of burden,” and after the party agreed that the symbol was inappropriate since many of its members haven’t held jobs nor worked for generations, the DNC announced it was adopting a new symbol more in line with its half century history and political goals.




Alternate DNC LOGO for official vehicles

The DNC said the new symbol was adopted from the organization that has been closely aligned with the DNC since the 1960s, supporting the party and financing some leading democrat leaders. The DNC said it was finally time to openly display their aims and goals with their new symbol. The DNC included an alternate symbol in their announcement suitable for banners and bumper stickers, especially for official party vehicles.

Party leaders, activists across the the country and academia applauded the announcement.

Yes, I’m feeling snarky this morning.


Is the US and NATO acting to blunt Putin’s aggression? He thinks so. NATO troops and armored forces entered Poland for a well publicized military exercise. It is to be a show of force against Putin’s aggression in Crimea and the Ukraine.

Putin is not amused and threatened retaliation. The Cold War has returned at a time when Obama is desperate to have a legacy, any legacy, now that his major accomplishment, Obamacare, may be crippled if the Supreme Court blocks federal subsidies for Obamacare recipients. One pundit said, “You can end communism in Russia, but you can’t remove the KGB from the Russian.” The Russian in this case is Putin. He has reverted to his previous KGB mentality.

The NATO exercise is not impressing the world’s military organizations. NATO has relied too long on the US for their security. NATO and the EU has sacrificed their militaries to feed their socialist states. Now, when the Cold War has resumed and with the US military resources still tied to the Mideast, NATO is barely able to field any forces to repel Putin if he invades the rest of the Ukraine…and perhaps the former EastBloc countries.

Even if the US was not sill involved in the Mideast, the US has reduced it’s military to a century-old level. The US Navy has fewer ships than it did prior to World War I. Much of the US war stocks, built up in Europe during the earlier cold war, has been expended during Gulf Wars I and II. With the military reductions imposed by Obama and the democrats, those war stocks have not been replenished. In some cases during military actions in Iraq and elsewhere, the US Navy ran out of cruise and land attack missiles.

Those miliary stocks have been slowly replaced. If at all. Some of the tooling needed to build more missiles was destroyed by DoD orders when the contracts expired. Now, when more missiles are needed, those tools are gone and it will be expensive to remake them.

But Putin isn’t the only aggressor on the horizon, The PRC, Communist China to everyone but the socialists around the world, is building a military base in the territory claimed by several other nations.

China builds new island military bases in South China Sea

Posted: May 20, 2015 8:06 PM CDT Updated: May 27, 2015 8:06 PM CDT
The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

SOUTH CHINA SEA (CNN) – It’s a tense confrontation between China’s military and an American spy plane monitoring disturbing developments in disputed waters hundreds of miles off the Chinese coast.

China’s activity in the South China Sea has peaked the interest of the U.S. military.

“Foreign military aircraft. This is the Chinese Navy. You are approaching our military alert zone.”

High above the South China Sea, the radio crackles with a stern warning.

“You go!”

The source of dispute appears on the horizon, seemingly out of nowhere.

Islands, manmade by China, located hundreds of miles from its coastline.

CNN got exclusive access to classified U.S. surveillance flights over the islands.

The first time journalists have been allowed on the operational mission by the state of the art P-8 Poseidon, America’s most advance surveillance and sub-hunting aircraft.

Three islands are the target of the mission. It’s the three islands that have been the focus of China’s building in the South China Sea over recent years.

China’s alarming creation of entirely new territory in the South China Sea is one part of a broader military push that some fear is to push U.S. dominance in the region.

Sailing its first aircraft carrier, equipping its nuclear missions with multiple warheads, developing missiles to destroy aircraft carriers, and now building military bases far from its shores.

For the U.S., the islands are a step too far. And the flight is a part of a new and old American military response that may soon include sailing U.S. warships close by as well.

In just two years, China has expanded the islands by 2,000 acres. The equivalent of 1,500 football fields and counting, an engineering marvel in waters as deep as 300 feet.

An American commander talks about what he sees.

“It appears to be a buildup of military infrastructure and not to mention we were just challenged probably 30 minutes ago and the challenge came from the Chinese Navy. And I’m highly confident that it came from a shore on this facility,” said Capt. Mike Parker, commander in the U.S. Navy.

What used to be the fiery cross reef now has early warning radar and an airport tower and a runway long enough to handle every aircraft in the Chinese military.

Some are calling it China’s unsinkable aircraft carrier.

The videos of the island taken from the P-8 advanced surveillance cameras never before declassified.

In a sign of just how valuable that China views them, the new islands are already well protected.

“There’s obviously a lot of surface traffic down there… uhh… Chinese warships and Chinese coast guard ships,” said Lt. Commander Matt Newman, mission commander in the U.S. Navy.

And there is proof. The Chinese navy ordering the P-8 out of the airspace not one, not twice, but eight times on the mission.

“This is the Chinese Navy. This is the Chinese Navy. Please go away quickly.”

And like the surveillance video, the audio of these warnings never before shared with the public.

What is interesting is there are also civilian aircrafts, there was a Delta flight on that same frequency. And when it heard that challenge it piped into the frequency to say what’s going on?

The Chinese Navy then reassuring them but as the flight crew says that can be a very nerve wracking experience for civilian aircraft in the area.

And the more China builds the more frequently and aggressively it warns away U.S. aircraft.

The crucial issue facing American voters in the coming national election is who to choose to lead us in the coming troubled times? Some of the candidates are isolationists, although they refuse to acknowledge the label. If a military confrontation occurs in the Ukraine or in the South China Sea, will our next President refuse to act, claiming it is not our business, or will he defend our allies and national security?

As much as some libertarians deny the fact, we cannot sit isolated from the world. We are dependent on allies and, if we are to have allies, they must be able to depend on us. The US and India has entered into talks discussing areas of mutual interest…the South China Sea, being one. India has a common border with China and has had military border disputes with China before.

When we choose a new President, we must chose one who is unafraid to remain involved in the world because the world will not be afraid to be involved in us.

Rand is in

Rand Paul announced his candidacy for President today. Erick Erickson wrote a column today that mirrors my concerns about Rand Paul as prez.

Welcome to the Arena, Senator Paul

Erick Erickson (Diary)  | 

Today, in Kentucky, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is going to announce his campaign for President of the United States.

This 2016 run has caused one unnoticed negative for conservatives. Since it became obvious that they’d be competing against each other in 2016, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz has had a less than stellar working relationship when it comes to advancing the conservative agenda. At least now it can be out there and the differences between the two can be aired.

Paul is going to have baggage that Cruz does not have. Paul backed McConnell against Matt Bevin in 2014 and McConnell is doing nothing now to reciprocate. Though McConnell won, it left a bad taste in the mouths of many conservative activists. Likewise, Rand Paul is going to have the shadow of his father lingering over him and will have to, again, show he is his own man. The zealous nature of many Ron Paul supporters keeps some from embracing Rand Paul and, concurrently, Team Paul has historically done awesome at winning straw polls, just not regular polls.

But Paul will be free of some baggage that Cruz has. Paul has gone out of his way to show he can work within establishment circles. Backing McConnell helped. Likewise, Paul has shown himself to be a less doctrinaire conservative, which will help him with the media, even if it does not with the base.

Many of my friends think Rand Paul operates as a closet Democrat. I think, in fact, he comes the closest to an authentic civil libertarian candidate in some time. He is willing to approach issues on race in ways other Republicans don’t, if only to mitigate prior attacks on him for his statements on civil rights legislation. He has also been willing to speak critically of American engagement abroad when most Republicans rah-rah any use of force.

The column continues at the website.

Rand Paul is waay down my list of preferred candidates. Still, I admit that he’s better than Bush, Christi or Huckabee. I believe Paul would secure our borders…but that’s all. His and his father’s political views are isolationist following the Libertarian platform. That platform does not support a strong military.

Paul’s foreign policy would be a retreat to our shores. Our Navy would revert to a ‘brown-water’ navy from a ‘blue water’ navy. Without ‘foreign entanglements,’ the US would not need a large military. Paul would continue the deterioration of our military capability. That is a very dangerous attitude and I see no amelioration of that in Rand Paul.

The US has lost its leadership of the world. I do not see Rand Paul interested in fixing that situation.


The race is on!


Libertarians or Libertarian Republicans?

Two items came to my attention this morning that, on the surface, seem unconnected…until you read the body of the articles. One appeared in the Wichita Eagle and was shown on the web via Kansas.Com. The other was a comment by Bobby Jindal at the Red State Gathering in New Orleans. Both are indicators of the struggle for primacy within the Republican Party.

The Wichita Eagle column was written by two Kansas Citians, neither know for their strong conservative principles. Both authors are reporters for the Kansas City ‘Red’ Star, and at least one is a full-blown, wild-eyed liberal.

That said, their observations do have some merit. They make the standard mistake of aligning libertarian philosophy as the sole ownership of the Libertarian Party. But, the left has never understood those principles anyway.

Libertarians, on a tide of support, make their move

Kansas, Missouri seeing the effects
Published Monday, August 5, 2013, at 6:53 a.m.

For half a century, the microgovernment movement known as libertarianism has lapped at the beach of American politics.

Sometimes, the tide rolls slowly; other times, it’s a bigger wave.

This summer, the surf is up.

From issues like same-sex marriage and legal marijuana to restrictions on government spying and U.S. intervention in foreign affairs, the nation is engaged in a new “libertarian moment,” politicians and political scientists say.

“The libertarian mindset – just leave me alone, get government out of my way, government shouldn’t tell me what I can or cannot do – that is definitely a larger and more active group than I’ve ever seen before,” said Missouri Sen. Brad Lager, a Republican from Savannah.

Brink Lindsey, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, sees the same phenomenon.

“The libertarian impulse is especially prominent right now and getting attention,” he said.

That impulse isn’t aimed at dramatically increasing support for the existing Libertarian political party. Approval for that has been stuck in the low single digits for decades and is likely to stay there, observers said.

It’s also likely to have little impact in the Democratic Party, which shares libertarians’ enthusiasm for civil liberties, but little else.

Instead, “small-l” libertarians have turned their attention to the Republican Party, where a fierce battle for message control is now underway.


• Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul, a leading libertarian voice, recently engaged in a nasty public battle with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie over government surveillance policy: Paul wants more limits on secret surveillance; Christie, also a Republican, does not.

• Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, libertarian Republicans, threatened to shut down the federal government over funding for the Affordable Care Act. The suggestion worried more mainstream Republican office holders, who prefer other approaches to repeal or reform Obamacare.

• In July, Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas voted against a new farm bill, earning applause from libertarian groups but frowns from the House GOP leadership. Huelskamp cast a “no” vote despite representing one of the biggest agricultural districts in the nation.

• Huelskamp recently joined with Rep. Emanuel Cleaver and other liberal Democrats to support new libertarian restrictions on government eavesdropping.

• This spring, libertarian Republicans in statehouses across the country, including Kansas and Missouri, approved new expansions of gun rights, a popular libertarian goal. Libertarians also are pursuing gun rights at the city council level.

• Missouri lawmakers rejected calls to expand Medicaid in the state and opposed Agenda 21, an obscure environmental initiative that they said threatened property rights.

• Lawmakers in Kansas and Missouri, worried about libertarian privacy concerns, considered bills this spring limiting drone aircraft.

In these cases and others, GOP libertarians fought mainstream, business- and compromise-oriented Republicans in an effort to promote their views.

“It’s animosity towards government,” said Jim Staab, a University of Central Missouri political science professor.

Libertarian movements aren’t new, of course. In the 1970s and again in the 1990s, many small-government conservatives drifted toward the libertarian approach whenever they believed GOP positions had drifted too far to the middle.

But the current libertarian moment may be getting a unique boost from younger politicians and voters. They’re blending socially tolerant views on same-sex marriage and drug use, experts said, with the anti-authoritarian ethos of the online generation to embrace a libertarian world view.

“They came of age in a very different world than their parents,” said longtime GOP consultant Jeff Roe, who called libertarians a “significant” force in the Republican party.

Al Terwelp, chairman of the Kansas Libertarian Party, said libertarians have changed.

“Fifteen years ago, (we were) a bunch of middle-aged white guys debating philosophy,” Terwelp said. “That has significantly changed. … There are lots and lots of young people.”

Even with support from younger voters, though, it isn’t clear if the current libertarian moment can last.

In 2010, the tea party movement made a similar anti-government case, only to watch its influence dwindle following internal arguments over tactics and commitment to the cause.

And libertarians may soon face a similar choice between ideological purity and a message aimed at a broader audience, some said.

“In the past, there have been libertarians who have said you can’t be a libertarian because you’re not libertarian enough,” Terwelp said. “We have been working on that. … (But) we’re not changing our principles.”

Indeed, libertarians can sometimes stumble over the full implications of their agenda.

The Libertarian party platform, for example, says abortion should be left to “each person for their conscientious consideration.”

That’s a bridge too far for many current GOP libertarians like Paul, Cruz and Huelskamp, who consider themselves strongly pro-life. Their views on same-sex marriage and recreational drugs are also nuanced.

Broadening libertarianism to include traditionally conservative views on social issues could draw more regular Republicans into the anti-government effort. At the same time, classic libertarians might be lost.

“The libertarian perspective is politically homeless,” said Cato’s Brink Lindsey. “It doesn’t fit left or right. Republican Party or Democratic Party … if it pushes too hard, it gets pushed back.”

The entire column can be found here.

The article continues delving into the usual Libertarian vs. ‘Pub divisions. Yes, there are some. Some of those divisions are not negotiable, like abortion. Libertarians accuse the ‘Pubs of wanting Big Government because of those differences while ‘Pubs accuse the Libertarians, rightly in my opinion, in being too rigid in their doctrine. It is doctrinal difference as strong and divisive as doctrinal divisions between religious dominations.

There is also a significant amount of truth in this column. The grass roots of the Republican Party is turning more and more “libertarian.” The libertarianism with a small “l”. Most of that shift is being driven by the slide of the GOP establishment to big government solutions, like increasing the SNAP program (food stamps,) amnesty for illegal aliens, ignoring the abuses of constitutional rights by the FBI and federal agencies, not least from the NSA.

The second item was an article that appeared in the Red State newsletter this morning.

The Establishment vs. The People

This year’s RedState Gathering was a wonderful event. There was, however, one interesting moment with a guy from the National Republican Senatorial Committee worth sharing.

Friday afternoon as I was trying to make my way to Governor Jindal’s reception, the guy from the NRSC stopped me and very derisively asked if I was going to support anyone other than challengers to incumbents. He went so far as to claim I must be making money to support challengers against incumbents and let me know RedState would be blamed if the GOP did not take back the majority.

What was most fascinating, however, was that he demanded I name candidates RedState supports in states without incumbents as proof RedState does not somehow get paid to push challengers. I mentioned Larry Rhoden in South Dakota, at which point he started bad mouthing State Senator Rhoden and revealing NRSC opposition research on Senator Rhoden.

I also mentioned Dr. Greg Brannon in North Carolina, but he was dismissive of him too.

This all comes as multiple friends of this site, in conversations with me, told me the National Republican Senatorial Committee contacted them to do negative stories about the Madison Project — a conservative group I am a big supporter of. Why? Because the Madison Project endorsed Matt Bevin in Kentucky against Senator Mitch McConnell. Full disclosure: the Madison Project’s Daniel Horowitz is a RedState contributor, which is why these friends reached out to give me a heads up.

So let’s recap — the NRSC is pushing hit jobs against conservative organizations who don’t support their incumbents in primaries. They are claiming conservatives who don’t support their candidates are getting paid to do so. They demand to know who conservatives support in open races then bashing those candidates.

And they call this outreach.

Friends, this is exactly why we have the RedState Gathering. You’d never have the opportunity to hear for yourselves people like Matt Bevin, Bryan Smith, Rob Maness, Art Halvorson, and Larry Rhoden if the NRSC and its establishment friends had anything to do with it.

Each year we do the RedState Gathering and I invite the speakers and I approve the sponsors. We returned money for some politicians who thought they could buy their way into the Gathering to get a platform. We refused large sponsorships from various Republicans because we did not want to be associated with them. We aren’t CPAC and work hard to present people we either fully support or are interested in supporting.

It is a sad commentary on the part of anyone at the NRSC that they would see RedState turning down money and then claim we are getting paid to do what we do. I would submit that is more a reflection on them than us and it is also a reason why we must commit to growing the RedState Gathering every year so the grassroots can experience authentically conservative candidates outside the world of the establishment and the coin operated portions of the movement.

Lastly — should you see any conservative outlets attacking groups like the Madison Project or Heritage Action for America or Club for Growth or others, it is probably a clear sign these outlets are on the side of the incumbent establishment leaders who’ve been complicit in getting us to $17 trillion in national debt, but think the only problem with government is Democrats in charge of it.

 The split between the GOP establishment and those outside Washington continues to grow. It’s not a question if the split in the party occurs, but when.